Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 316 views

    Venzon Vs Rural Bank of Buenavista

    Uploaded by

    cyhaaangelaaa
    Virginia Venzon filed a petition to nullify foreclosure proceedings by Rural Bank of Buenavista regarding a mortgage on her property. She claimed to have paid all but ₱2,370 of her ₱5,000 loan but the bank refused further payment and foreclosed. The bank claimed full non-payment and legal foreclosure. Interestingly, the bank did not deny receiving ₱6,000 from Venzon as evidenced by a receipt, though it argued the payment could not be considered redemption. By not clearly denying the payment, the bank was deemed to have admitted it. Since the bank's foreclosure bid covered all Venzon owed, it was not entitled to the additional ₱6

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Venzon Vs Rural Bank of Buenavista

    Uploaded by

    cyhaaangelaaa
    316 views2 pages
    Virginia Venzon filed a petition to nullify foreclosure proceedings by Rural Bank of Buenavista regarding a mortgage on her property. She claimed to have paid all but ₱2,370 of her ₱5,000 loan but the bank refused further payment and foreclosed. The bank claimed full non-payment and legal foreclosure. Interestingly, the bank did not deny receiving ₱6,000 from Venzon as evidenced by a receipt, though it argued the payment could not be considered redemption. By not clearly denying the payment, the bank was deemed to have admitted it. Since the bank's foreclosure bid covered all Venzon owed, it was not entitled to the additional ₱6

    Original Description:

    evd

    Original Title

    1. Venzon vs Rural Bank of Buenavista

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Virginia Venzon filed a petition to nullify foreclosure proceedings by Rural Bank of Buenavista regarding a mortgage on her property. She claimed to have paid all but ₱2,370 of her ₱5,000 loan but the bank refused further payment and foreclosed. The bank claimed full non-payment and legal foreclosure. Interestingly, the bank did not deny receiving ₱6,000 from Venzon as evidenced by a receipt, though it argued the payment could not be considered redemption. By not clearly denying the payment, the bank was deemed to have admitted it. Since the bank's foreclosure bid covered all Venzon owed, it was not entitled to the additional ₱6

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    316 views2 pages

    Venzon Vs Rural Bank of Buenavista

    Uploaded by

    cyhaaangelaaa
    Virginia Venzon filed a petition to nullify foreclosure proceedings by Rural Bank of Buenavista regarding a mortgage on her property. She claimed to have paid all but ₱2,370 of her ₱5,000 loan but the bank refused further payment and foreclosed. The bank claimed full non-payment and legal foreclosure. Interestingly, the bank did not deny receiving ₱6,000 from Venzon as evidenced by a receipt, though it argued the payment could not be considered redemption. By not clearly denying the payment, the bank was deemed to have admitted it. Since the bank's foreclosure bid covered all Venzon owed, it was not entitled to the additional ₱6

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Venzon vs.

    Rural Bank of Buenavista


    G.R. No. 178031
    August 28, 2013

    Facts:

    Petitioner Virginia M. Venzon filed a Petition to nullify foreclosure proceedings and Tax
    Declaration issued in the name of respondent Rural Bank of Buenavista (Agusan del Norte), Inc.
    Petitioner alleged that in 1983 she and her late spouse, George F. Venzon, Sr., obtained a ₱5,000.00
    loan from respondent against a mortgage on their house and lot; that she was able to pay ₱2,300.00,
    thus leaving an outstanding balance of only ₱2,370.00; that sometime in March 1987, she offered
    to pay the said balance in full, but the latter refused to accept payment, and instead shoved
    petitioner away from the bank premises; that in March 1987, respondent foreclosed on the
    mortgage, and the property was sold at auction for ₱6,472.76 to respondent, being the highest
    bidder; that the foreclosure proceedings are null and void for lack of notice and publication of the
    sale, lack of sheriff’s final deed of sale and notice of redemption period; and that she paid
    respondent ₱6,000.00 on October 9, 1995, as evidenced by respondent’s Official Receipt No.
    4108486 issued on October 9, 1995.

    On the other hand, respondent claimed that petitioner did not make any payment on the
    loan; that petitioner never went to the bank in March 1987 to settle her obligations in full; that
    petitioner was not shoved and driven away from its premises; that the foreclosure proceedings
    were regularly done and all requirements were complied with; that a certificate of sale was issued
    by the sheriff and duly recorded in the Registry of Deeds; that petitioner’s claim that she paid
    ₱6,000.00 on October 9, 1995 is utterly false; that petitioner’s cause of action has long prescribed
    as the case was filed only in 2005 or 18 years after the foreclosure sale; and that petitioner is guilty
    of laches.

    Issue:

    Whether or not the foreclosure proceedings were legal

    Ruling:

    Interestingly, respondent did not deny being the issuer of Official Receipt No. 410848.
    Instead, it averred that petitioner’s payment to it of ₱6,000.00 was false and self-serving, but in
    the same breath argued that, without necessarily admitting that payment of ₱6,000.00 was made,
    the same cannot be considered as redemption price.

    By making such an ambiguous allegation in its Answer with Counterclaims, respondent is


    deemed to have admitted receiving the amount of ₱6,000.00 from petitioner as evidenced by
    Official Receipt No. 410848, which amount under the circumstances it had no right to receive. "If
    an allegation is not specifically denied or the denial is a negative pregnant, the allegation is deemed
    admitted." "Where a fact is alleged with some qualifying or modifying language, and the denial is
    conjunctive, a ‘negative pregnant’ exists, and only the qualification or modification is denied,
    while the fact itself is admitted." "A denial in the form of a negative pregnant is an ambiguous
    pleading, since it cannot be ascertained whether it is the fact or only the qualification that is
    intended to be denied." "Profession of ignorance about a fact which is patently and necessarily
    within the pleader's knowledge, or means of knowing as ineffectual, is no denial at all." In fine,
    respondent failed to refute petitioner’s claim of having paid the amount of ₱6,000.00.

    Since respondent was not entitled to receive the said amount, as it is deemed fully paid
    from the foreclosure of petitioner’s property since its bid price at the auction sale covered all that
    petitioner owed it by way of principal, interest, attorney’s fees and charges, it must return the same
    to petitioner.

    You might also like